Category / Transit Solutions

by Adron

Rethinking Transit #1: User Experience Fixins’ for King County Metro

One of the big problems with transit, is the lack of creativity to create better, more usable, easier to understand elements.  The last great strides in transit usability, where almost all done during the private* company days of the early twentieth century. Regardless of this though, I’m going to put together some ways that King County Metro could make the system here in Seattle more friendly to regular users, new first time users, people coming in from other cities for a visit, tourists on vacation, or whoever may be trying to use the system. With that, this is a new blog entry series I’ll be starting called Rethinking Transit. If anyone would be interested in syndicating this I’m all ears! Just get in touch with me at adronhall [at] gmail [dot] com.

With these solutions I will try to follow a few general principles:

  1. They have to be covered by current operating or set dollars that are in the budget. I might provide some solutions that are extremely small expenses – no more than a 1-2% increase in the budget at most.
  2. They must be simple enough that even a heavily bureaucratic entity like King County Metro could undertake with just a few brave individuals standing up for the change! These solutions aren’t going to be like “Run light rail EVERYWHERE” or “Make every bus like a BRT line” or “put tolls on the entire city and do rush hour charging”. Simple, basic, easy to implement solutions.
  3. Any changes that I suggest, that provide solutions to current problems should enable ridership to increase without strain on the system. Maybe a few minor tweaks or changes, but overall the system and Union people won’t have to freak out, they can still generally operate everything just as it was.
For any other suggestions on how to fix the system, I’ll leave those for specifically labeled blog entries. For this series though, I’m going to label each entry starting with Rethinking Transit. With all that out of the way, my first of the series begins now!
User Experience Map Fail

King County Metro has time tables and schedules available in some locations. On some of the posts downtown they actually have schedules and other miscellaneous information. On many of the signs and posts that show stops downtown or even in the outer edges of Seattle the number of the route is at least shown. Here’s a suggestion on how to drastically improve the usefulness of transit stops in Seattle. I’ve enumerated them below.
  1. Stop putting the schedules at the bus stops. If anything is on the post, put the frequency and a link to http://www.onebusaway.org for real-time arrivals, but do NOT put the intended arrival time. The schedule is a lie, complete utter bullshit. Everybody around the city that uses the buses more than once or twice knows the schedule is a lie. That’s why about 32k people per day use the @onebusaway service. So just stop lying and provide something that can actually help people ride the bus. Get usage of @onebusaway even higher, provide some small funding for it, get more involved, but stop putting up bullshit schedules. Just because that’s the way it worked 100 years ago doesn’t mean it does today, so stop ignoring reality.
  2. The second thing that would actually be helpful is to actually put a map on the stop. It doesn’t have to be a complex map, but at least a map stating if the bus heads north out of downtown or south or whatever. A schedule, which as I pointed out above is completely useless, is silly but a map at least gives some guidance for people that aren’t absolutely sure which bus they need. I know, some of the bus drivers out there might bitch (at least I can imagine Jeff calling me an idiot or something now because I supposed to know every route – which generally I do, but I study this stuff, most people do NOT do that and shouldn’t have to). But seriously, help out the people trying to use the system by at least making a meager attempt to inform them where a route goes.
Well, those are my first two suggestions. I’ll have another entry coming real soon on how to improve the system. I intend to write a new entry of Rethinking Transit every two weeks, so the next installment will be on the 30th. Until then, happy riding!
In case you want more information about King Count Transit.
by Adron

Light Rail, Primary Arterial Transport

Skytrain is by far one of the best example of light rail done right in North America.  It carries over 300k people each day and runs an actual profit on operations.  No other system in North America can boast such an efficient, clean, and effective system.

The Sound Transit Central Link will likely become a very strong player in Seattle’s future transit.  The ridership this fourth quarter was up 5%, almost entirely because of Sound Transit Central Link.  Bus ridership stayed pretty much at the same level.  This is the same thing that has occurred in every single system (except Buffalo, NY) that built a light rail line to act as an arterial – or even minor arterial – transport.  The light rail, as people become familiar with it, regularly choose it over regular or BRT bus service, and a huge percentage of riders are choosing it over a car (i.e. they traditionally did not ride the bus or transit at all for that matter).  Light rail is a very effective way to increase transit usage, and in the long run it also decreases operational costs for a transit authority.

Light Rail in Seattle is set to be exceptionally costly in capital costs, primarily because of the city’s decision to build most (over 90% of it) in huge tunnels, raised above road & ground level, or placed underground (dig and cover style).  This has made the capital costs massive.  However, in 20 years, especially with inflation kicking in, the light rail will most likely prove to have been one of the most intelligent transit decisions in Seattle in well over 30 years or so.

Why?

The net operational costs of the light rail per person carried and the net development that light rail encourages is light years beyond what BRT or general bus routes can provide.  The light rail, operationally will fall to well below a 1/3rd of the cost of buses operationally.  Even with capital costs as high as they are in Seattle these costs after inflation and time will become a negligible cost compared to what regular road damage and bus capitol and costs end up being.

Don’t believe me?

Vancouver’s Skytrain actually provides additional money for feeder buses and other transit because it operates profitably.  The capital costs in that city where even higher than Seattle’s because of the automated (i.e. it is unmanned, no driver) and on raised infrastructure right of way.  However even these capital costs start to be a minimal concern for existing lines over time, as the inflation and heavy utilization (over 358k per day on Skytrain in 2010) of the system continues the costs that are saved on roadways, lives saved (over auto usage), and additional things add up to be vastly higher than the cost of the infrastructure.  In addition, the infrastructure isn’t exactly costing a ton of money after it is built, these systems (i.e. rail) last for decades upon decades, unlike most road systems.

Portland’s MAX Light Rail, the original 15~ miles or so, with operational costs and infrastructure capital costs included, is less than it would have been to provide buses to ply the entire distance on existing roadways.  There is no way they could have managed the same ridership levels (over 30k per day on this single short line) with buses on existing roadways (the Interstate gets backed up every day, and has zero area to expand into – i.e. it is only going to get worse for drivers).  With BRT they could have managed some ridership increases, but it would have been less than light rail and would have cost the city millions more than the light rail has if they could have gotten the same ridership increases.  Today, the light rail along most of the original Blue Line has many lines feed into the primary corridor along the Banfield, bringing that 30k per day much closer to 40 or 50k per day and growing.

For more examples check out Denver (Rapidly growing system), San Francisco, New Jersey (Which includes connections with MTA & other systems!), Boston (The most efficient light rail in the US), Philadelphia, and San Diego for more light rail systems that have gained their respective transit agencies a decreasing cost in operations dollars per rider while increasing the quality and efficiency of the ride!

Don’t get me wrong, I praise light rail for all it’s strengths, but buses absolutely serve a significant purpose in any transit system’s mode options.  Especially for less heavily traveled routes where light rail just makes no sense!  BRT for those routes that need upgrading but have minimal capital outlay or will likely not achieve light rail capacity needs.  Of course there is also those cities that are growing rapidly enough that they should bypass the light rail and step right into the big league of commuter rail or subway systems.  San Francisco being one of those cities that complements each mode;  heavy rail, subway (BART), light rail, streetcars, and buses.

Cheers to the cities that have had the insight, open minds, and intelligence to build out their systems.  Boo to those cities that continue to falter in back woods thinking.  They do the country a disservice and the betterment of all mankind suffers for it.  Anyway, I’ve said this before, but the facts haven’t changed so I figured I’d repeat myself with this entry.  🙂

Until later…   keep on rolling.

by Adron

Wow, That Summarizes Metro’s Need to Get With The Program

Recently I posted an entry about how Metro just wasn’t holding up well with costs per ride.  Metro is an amazing system, considering, but Portland and many other cities are cheaper & more efficient at carrying riders to their destinations.  Making those systems a much better investment of the particular cities.  Hopefully Metro is getting on top of this problem to come up with some GOOD solutions, which doesn’t mean expanding expensive bus service or continuing to server long range outlying areas.  The cost efficiencies are not in serving the suburbs, which Metro does a LOT of these days.  Add Sound Transit, Sounder, and some of the other modes that serve the far outlying areas and you run into even HIGHER costs!

Here’s the article that recently just backed up my notion that Metro needs more light rail, more urban transit, more town center focus, and better all around town center structures that are people oriented.  Vancouver BC is proof, Portland is proof, and many other cities.  Seattle could easily cut their costs by a 1/5, possible even by a 1/3rd if they got after a very aggressive timeline in adding truly efficient transit options (light rail, urban walkability, and other such things are prime examples to help ridership & efficiencies).

Here’s a graph.

Wow, Light Rail is Cheap

Wow, Light Rail is Cheap

Some key links that show Metro IS at least heading the right direction.

by Adron

How Many SOVs Don’t Need to be in Rush Hour?

Note:  SOV == Single Occupancy Vehicle, which is what about 98%+ of cars on the road are, one driver operating the vehicle on an inefficient trip to do X.

As I was sitting on the bus, which was actively removing over 90 people from SOV use I started thinking.  How many of these people do NOT need to be on the road?  How many people are confused and just think they need to be SOV?  How many of these people could take transit, could live in a better location or more intelligently?  How many of these people, if auto transport wasn’t so heavily subsidized, could even afford to be taking frivolous trips like this?  How much wealth redistribution through transportation dollars encourages needless trips that clog Interstates, Highways, arterials and other routes?  Not to even mention the environmental damage of the excess and unneeded trips.

Common Fallacies for People Living in Smart and Intelligent Cities

“I need a car because of X situation that I have!”

This is a nonsense argument for the vast majority of people traveling to and from work.  If X is a child, or a last minute errand to run on the way home, or other item that is an outlier situation to the normal commute.  So many people use this excuse and have not thought through their situation.

If you have a child all the more reason to encourage more intelligent, non-auto centric lifestyles.

If the child is sick or injures themselves at school, which is the often cited argument, it doesn’t hold up because if it is a big enough emergency you DO NOT and SHOULD NOT drive directly to them.  The emergency services in the United States are for that specific reason.  They’ll most likely get there before you and you’ll most likely endanger lives of those around you “hurrying” to get to your child.  If the child just needs picked up from school, in most cities there are a number of alternatives to you running to them and bringing them home.  There are taxies, zip car options, and more.  You just have to think without the absurdity of saying it is a necessity for you to maintain and keep an entire car just for the sole purpose of an emergency that may or may not happen.

If you’re excuse is even less, such as X being something like karate class or a meetup after work, then again the planning you have done is poor.  If you live in any decent city, if you’re traveling so far out of your way for a meetup that it requires a car you’ve grossly mismanaged your life.  Keep things close, keep things local to you, keep things within reasonable reach.

…and don’t just do these things because it’s more intelligent to use transit and be a more responsible member of society.  Do it because it servers YOU better.  Imagine not paying auto insurance, having a wide selection of cars at your disposal instead of JUST ONE (ZipCar, Rentals, etc), imagine no car payment, no maintenance, not paying for gas(ZipCar), not worrying about “parking” every time you go downtown, not having to step into the most dangerous mode of transport in the country.  Just imagine not having to deal with those things.  With a little thinking – in the good & smart cities in the US – you can get rid of these concerns and problems.  You can be a part of the citizenry that isn’t causing the problems associated with the sprawl.

…and I promise you, your life will be better lived for it.

Here are a few of the cities where people should and could drive less en masse.

  • Portland, OR
  • Seattle, WA
  • Chicago, IL (already a heavy transit usage city, but more could be done)
  • New York, NY (also already a heavy transit use city at over 50% of the city using transit, but again, there is more that could be done to get rid of frivolous and unneeded trips)
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Los Angeles, CA (transit is amazingly making a huge come back in LA)
  • San Diego, CA
  • Boston, MA
  • New Orleans, LA
  • Denver, CO
  • Miami, FL
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Sacramento, CA

All of these cities, and there are more too, are cities that offer enough transit, bike, and other alternatives that more people should really think through and look at options besides car ownership or leasing.  There are literally millions of trips per day, millions of gallons of fuel, millions of hours of congestion time, and millions of dollars to save if additional people just think through their lifestyle paradigms a little.

It doesn’t take much, just being smarter about your day.  I’m done with my transit rant of the day.  So help me though, if someone comes up with the above excuse again I’m gonna…

Live better, peace! – Transit Sleuth

by Adron

Bing Maps Catches up ~5 Years After Google Enabled…

…the urban transit lifestyle through Google Maps.  Google and TriMet, the first to pair up and develop some standards and get transit systems on maps, finally have an urban competitor in the online mapping space.  Bing finally offers transit directions in…  well I’m not sure all of the areas they offer directions, but I know they cover Seattle now.  I’m happy, but at this point Microsoft lost me years ago with their suburban centered, not so feature packed maps.  Google on the other hand has pushed the envelope for years.

Which leaves me the question, how could Microsoft even gain my interest at this point in the mapping field?  In the clean urban lifestyle field?

  • Microsoft now has transit on the maps, using of course the transit information that originated from Google and TriMet’s work years ago.
  • Microsoft provided transit to their campus from downtown Seattle, even though they’re mostly suburban focused still.  Google did this in San Francisco years before Microsoft did.  I do however, applaud both in these efforts!
  • Microsoft does have alternative campus locations in Westlake in Seattle, and Lincoln Center in Bellevue which are great urban campuses.  However, many of the people who would like to work in these offices are still stuck traveling out to the suburbs.

This also leads me to one of the other questions I have pondered a lot lately.  I wonder how many candidates Microsoft loses because they are young and want to live where the startups, the fun, the action, the music, and the art are?  Because those things sure aren’t out on the Redmond, that’s pretty much downtown Seattle, Fremont, or Ballard area.  The mixed zoned, city center oriented, transit friendly areas.  Does anyone know these statistics?  Does anyone have a wild guess?

Overall, I’m not really complaining.  It is awesome that Microsoft finally got on the bandwagon.  I also realize that the corporate powers slowly but surely realize that they need a LOT MORE presence in urban centers in San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and other tech heavy cities.  These are the cities that are starting to show the future trend path of the youth.  These cities are the ones that are showing the rest of the country how to get its act together.  I just hope that these corporate leaders didn’t realize to late to stave off ill will and bad effects.